Asserting Sovereignty

51920 Responseshttp://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/03/25/asserting-sovereignty/Asserting+Sovereignty2009-03-25+11%3A54%3A54Tenth+Amendment to “Asserting Sovereignty”

1. 

   Lloy Reply 25. Mar, 2009 at 7:52 am

   Asserting sovereignty in the states but not in the Federal government or in the nation is an argument which abandons us all to the tyrants in the state governments. “Sovereignty” has several differing definitions. One is that a “sovereign” is an independent entity from other entities having similar or identical characteristics. In plain language, one state or nation is independent of all the others, in general. Two is that a “sovereign” is a person or body of people to whom obedience is habitually given. Well, that’s nice, but doesn’t apply here, as we’re looking for a definition of “sovereignty” which assists us in determing who or what is ultimately sovereign in the American system of governing. Three is that a “sovereign” is the self-sufficient source of political authority. Ah, there we may have a definition which is of some use in analyzing our situation. By the by, I didn’t make these definitions up; they are found in any Black’s Law Dictionary.

   By the way, those of you who would “first, let’s kill all the lawyers” ought to consider that in the first instance law is a method of settling disputes which avoids open violence among us. That it has been corrupted by those who seek power over us all is hardly surprising if you look at every other profession and occupation: scientists, educators, university faculty, religious leaders … need I go on? Fix the system and the consequences of having an inherently corrupt system will go away by themselves, without the need to resort to either violence or foolish law-making.

   Back to “sovereignty”. So it seems that the definition of that word most useful for us in our circumstance is that last one. A sovereign is the self-sufficient source of political authority. Is that the Federal government? No, because it didn’t exist until the federal constitution was written and ratified. How about the state governments? Likewise, no, because none of them existed prior to the writing and ratification of their respective state constitions. That statement points us in the direction of our answer. What is a constitution? A written explicit delegation of certain authority from the sovereign to the agents to be chosen by the sovereign according to the methods set out in the constitution. It is a special sort of agency; not to be confused with a commercial or civil contractual agency, but of that sort of thing. Is some new entity – a political one, to be sure, but an entity – created by a constitution? No. How do we know that? Read them! They all say, boiled down to their simpliest terms: “To persons with these qualifications, selected by these methods, for these terms of office, we grant these authorities to act in our behalf in this scope or to this extent.” Period. No new entity created. To believe that a constitution or other governmental charter creates a new entity is to confuse politics with biology.

   Who, then, is sovereign? Each of the people is the self-sufficient source of political authority. We get together and write charters authorizing some of us to exercise some of our inherent powers for the benefit of all of us. Necessarily, under our philosophy, those powers are limited both in extent and subject, because to grant too much power to governors defeats the purpose of having a government. So, neither the states nor the nation are sovereign. We are, individually, sovereign, and we join together to make a government for the same reason that we join together to build large structures, to cut down large trees, to move vast quantities of materials, to manufacture all the things of modern life: because by working together cooperatively we are able to do things we cannot do alone. So, don’t forget that the Tenth Amendment reserves undelegated rights to the people, ultimately, as we are the source of all political power, not our agents in the state governments.

2. 

   DM Zuniga Reply 25. Mar, 2009 at 3:34 pm

   Lloy,

   The difficulty about your exordium is that it poses the logical fallacy of the Excluded Middle (false dilemma). We needn’t choose between tyrants, at all, if we can finally fashion a smaller choke-collar and begin thinking of our criminals in Congress exactly as we think of anyone prowling our neighborhood at night with a crowbar.

   The nice thing about a Neighborhood Watch program is that everyone viscerally understands the principles, with little or no explanation: what is mine, is not yours. So while I agree with the bulk of your monograph, the exordium raised that ‘tyranny’ specter, when really all we’re faced with here are plain crooks, at the trillion-dollar level.

   Actually, our America Again! project proposes something that might be called a Neighborhood Watch program together with an HOA…for every community in these 50 Sovereign States. We are using Dr. Edwin Vieira’s term, Citizens’ Homeland Security Association.

   Instead of enforcing the covenants and restrictions of a residential subdivision, the CHSA will be enforcing the Constitution’s covenants and restrictions, against just its three perps (one US congressman, two US senators). Not too hard to do, right? Each of 435 ‘neighborhoods’ and 50 States now start watching them like a hawk…and if they strt committing a crime, you haul them before a State Grand Jury on criminal charges.

   [Which reminds me...Brian McCandliss, I need to talk to you; please email me.]

   As to tyrants: I’d rather have the tyrants that I can reach in three hours by car, than those who abide ‘way over on the Potomac. There’s no doubt that the pork-fest has reached the State, County, municipal, and school district levels. It’s just as the SCOTUS ruling had it 57 years ago:

   In a government of laws… Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.
   Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485 (1928)

   In our system of law, the archon is the US Constitution and those laws made pursuant to (and not repugnant to) that Supreme Law. There is no “ruler”; only representatives. At least that was the theory! But the law won’t enforce itself, so the Constitution needs us to enforce it, as Franklin suggested with his quip, “A Republic…if you can keep it!”

   We must get the federal practicioners in the legal profession to understand the paradigm shift, and they will not give up their King-of-the-Hill position, “Federal trumps State, always!” until the political reality whacks them with a lead pipe between the eyes.

   This year’s Tea Party rallies will be the first shot across the bow both of the perps in Congress and the White House, and their lackey perps in the inferior federal courts.

   As Dr. Kevin Gutzman said in a trenchant 2007 article entitled “Judicial Review vs. Constitutional Government”,

   One overlooked effect of judicial review – the power of American judges to declare laws unconstitutional – is that it gives judges power to adopt amendments the people, through their representatives, have rejected. “Constitutional law,” the body of decisions of American judges implementing the Constitution, not only does not reflect the people’s wishes in adopting constitutional language, but often flatly contradicts it.

   Does the average American understand that all federal courts but the highest one exist at the pleasure of Congress, for goodness’ sakes? No; because Article III of the Constitution may as well be in Pashto or Swahili, for all they know. To the average government-school toad, “federal” means “our rulers”.

   But there are now many blogs like this one, teaching basic remedial civics to Americans, most of whom graduated from government-run ‘education’ institutions whose motivation is to graduate idiot, taxpayer worker-bees.

   Co-founder of America Again! Mike Church and I had a teleconference with Eric Odom (co-founder, Tax Day Tea Party) and Chad Peace (co-founder, America’s Tea Party) yesterday. The April 15th rallies may not quite have time to gain steam, but I think many of the rallies will roll out the America Again! project, and signing up the first few tens of thousands of citizens for CHSAs.

   New Deck, New Deal. Let’s Roll.

   http://www.america-again.blogspot.com

3. 

   Kaelieh Reply 25. Mar, 2009 at 5:16 pm

   I just want to make sure I’m clear on this, so by this argument the United States would be more like the European Union. In the sense that the EU brings together other nations to engage in specifically outlined activities with a common currency. (I realize that not all EU members use the euro.)

   So like, one could say Louisiana is to France as the US is to the EU. At least loosely speaking?

   I’m definitely for that. Considering our crappy foreign policy I’m really embarrassed to say that I am a US citizen. I’d much rather be a Louisiana citizen (despite my own issues with my state.)

   One other question, why were we called states then in the first place? I realize that the meaning of the term could have just changed over time, whereas state and nation might have meant the same thing when the Constitution was written.

   If the prior is true, then what does it mean to be a state?

   • 

     Michael Boldin Reply 26. Mar, 2009 at 9:46 am

     Kaelieh:

     You ask an important question – the idea of states being sovereign, independent nations would make them similar, but not the same as countries in the EU. But, you’re on the right track. Some people support this method, others are fine with states being what they are now – part of a national government.

4. 

   Lloy Reply 25. Mar, 2009 at 6:30 pm

   Kaelieh: My recollection of American history leads me to think that your analogy would hold true during the time before the ratification of the present federal constitution, roughly from 1777 – 1789. Forgive me in advance, as I’ve forgotten the years during which the Articles of Confederation were in effect, but it was immediately prior to the adoption of the present constitution. In fact, the “Constitutional Convention” as it has come to be called, was only authorized to draft amendments to the Articles of Confederation. At that time, I believe that Mr. McCandliss’ assertions would be true that the states, as sovereign nations – first definition in my previous post – joined together in a voluntary association.

   I disagree with him since the adoption of the present federal constitution for a number of reasons relating to what the terms of the relationship between the states and the federal government were under the present consititution. One example is that under the present constitution, federal law takes supercedes state law in those areas where the federal government was granted exclusive authority by the states. Examples of that would be the standards of weights and measures, the provision for a national currency, national control over the armed forces and those types of provisions. None of those grants of superior federal authority over the states existed in the Articles.

   The word, “state”, in political science can refer to a number of things, depending upon the context. “Louisiana is one of the states of the United States.” Plainly, the word is used here with the meaning, “one of the constituent political subdivisions of the United States”. “Prussia should take its rightful place as one of the first states of Europe.” Not so clearly without some historical knowledge, this sentence uses the word, “state”, to refer to what was in fact an independent nation in Europe. So in short, sometimes the word means a political subdivision of a nation-state and sometimes an independent nation-state itself. Recall, also, it’s use in this context: “Athens in the 4th Century B.C. was one of the most powerful city-states of Greece.” I suppose the simpliest use is to denote a political division, either greater or lesser in size and dominance. Hope that helps.

5. 

   Lloyd Reply 26. Mar, 2009 at 8:47 am

   DM Zuniga: I am sorry that my comment left you with that impression. It was my intention to point out that we need to trim back state governments and office-holders as well as those in federal office. And, of course, to point out the logical conclusion of an argument for state’s rights based upon traditional American political philosophy. Let me make the attempt again, briefly.

   The very wording use reveals the problem all of us face in discussing these issues of legitimate versus illegitimate exercise of governmental powers. States don’t have “rights”, they have powers or authority granted by their constitutions to official selected by the methods likewise set out in their constitutions. Individuals humans have rights and are the source of all political authority. To use the word “rights” to label the powers of state governments is a seriously misleading misnomer.

   Why do I say that? While we may argue legitimately that there rights not enumerated in any bill of rights, as the federal constitution says in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, use of that word to refer to governments’ powers as agents of the people implies that there are “inherent” powers in government. The legal doctrine of “inherent powers” existing in state governments – and more recently in the federal government – is a dangerous one to our freedoms, as the experience of the last two hundred and so years ought to have taught us. That doctrine – in an oversimplified and generalized way – was derived directly from the idea that the states were “sovereign”, without any attention being paid to the different meanings of that word. That a state is the self-sufficient source of political authority – that being one of the definitions of “sovereign” – is incorrect. That a state is independent of other states of equal legal status and dignity is undeniable, but is of no value in claiming the existence of undelegated powers inhering in the state. At the risk of repeating myself: states do not exist unless and until the people organize and establish them, by means of a written charter of government containing the structure, offices, method of selection of officers and delegation of specific powers and scope for those powers. Therefore, a state cannot be self-sufficient, since it is a thing made by our deliberate act and is rightfully created or destroyed by our will. Thus, no “rights” – being moral perogatives to act – inhere in the state. No authority to act whatsoever is contained in a state or national government by its nature. That such inherent authority exists is implicit in the use of the word “rights” to refer to a state’s authority.

   I hope this clarifies what I was trying to express earlier. Thank you.

6. 

   DM Zuniga Reply 26. Mar, 2009 at 9:37 am

   Lloyd,

   No, actually it only muddles it further, since I never raised the semantic issue about asserting “rights”, nor did Brian McCandliss.

   I’ll wager that Brian and I agree that regional secession was tactical folly, even as any of the ‘Free State’ projects are folly. The Supreme Law is really quite equal to the tasks we want to accomplish, but only if it is enforced.

   The sovereign States have original juisdiction ab initio as the parties to the Constitution for the united States. Note my accurate, conscious capitalisation of ‘States’, and not of ‘united’; we must begin repairing the semantic and grammatical ruins that reflect our consciousness as a self-governing people.

   The original jurisdiction over constitutional torts was posited clearly and repeatedly by Jefferson and Madison; no ‘legal scholar’ or judge worthy of audition can gainsay those framers’ dicta on constitutional law.

   The freedom and indeed duty of the States to pursue — no, not to petition and not to ’seek’, but to pursue deliberately, as sovereigns — our remedies at law, is clear from the Principles of ‘98, now being reiterated in the State Legislatures. But the States are largely parroting all or part of the KY Resolution of 1798, without adding enforcement teeth.

   In coordination with the America Again! project (a tactical enforcement mechanism being rolled out on April 15th and July 4th across the States), we are proposing that anyone whose State Legislature has a Sovereignty Resolution in process or committee, must add an enforcement hook for We the People to pursue the individual member of Congress with civil and criminal action under the laws of that State. Otherwise, all this Sovereignty Resolution activity will be for naught. We recommend adding something like the following amendment to your State’s resolution:

   RESOLVED, That although this act does not provide specific remedies for unlawful activities described herein by a Texas resident who is a member of the United States Congress, the State of Texas reserves the right to pursue action, civil or criminal, on behalf of the constituents of said member of Congress, available under the laws of this state; and be it further

   I’m sure some of you can do better than that; this is just an example.

   In coming years, the Citizens’ Homeland Security Associations that we hope to see growing out of the America Again! project, will then have an “enforcement hook” in their State Resolution, upon which to have their State DA craft his civil and/or criminal complaint(s) against your member of Congress.

   Believe me, if fellows like Kevin Gutzman, Edwin Vieira, and McCandliss don’t teach basic constitutional law to some of these legislatures and grand juries in the States, we may lose any hope of enforcing the Rule of Law amidst the din and whirl that characterises the fascist machine in this Age of Obama.

   New Deck. New Deal. Let’s Roll.

   http://www.america-again.blogspot.com

7. 

   DM Zuniga Reply 26. Mar, 2009 at 10:07 am

   Michael,

   Law is law, even when the regnant ‘history’ curriculum weaves legends in place of reality. The united States of America are sovereign governments, each with its own Constitution, legislature, chief executive, and courts — all distinguishing characteristics of sovereign nation-states among the world’s governments.

   It is a legal, historical fact that King George III had to sign THIRTEEN peace treaties in Paris — one with each sovereign State in the American Republic. He could not sign one treaty with “one nation” because we were not, are not, and shall never be “one nation, under God”. The pledge of allegiance to ‘Uncle Sam’ is another bit of government-school programming, masterfully used to pull on heartstrings without brain synapses.

   We are not a nation, we are a Republic of sovereign States with a limited-power, limited-function central government formed by the States, and existing only at the pleasure of the sovereign People. That “nation” might be six diffeent regional “nations” 100 years from now…or FIFTY of them, if We the People so choose.

   In terms of law and political economy, we are in PRECISELY the same situation as Europe: I can tell you without the least hesitation that the average Texan has little to nothing in common with the average native of Connecticut, Maine, California, Oregon, Massechusetts, et al — except those things we CHOSE to have in common: currency, some postal roads (interstates), some interstate trade and legal commonality, protection amongst us of patents and trademarks, etc.

   Just survey, if you will, the culture (folkways, language(s), morals, traditions) of these fifty States of the American union, and you will see at least as much diversity as you see among the States of Europe, with the exception of English being (more or less) universal…but even that isn’t true in the ‘hood or the barrio. God only knows what language those people are speaking.

   My Republic always has been Texas; and shall be while I live on this earth. If New Jersey, California, Delaware, Vermont, etc went their own way tomorrow, Texas would go on as before. Always will, till the Lord comes.

   • 

     Michael Boldin Reply 26. Mar, 2009 at 10:11 am

     No doubt about it, ZM. The declaration of independence makes it quite clear. But the states are not sovereign in practice, obviously. That’s why it’s my hope that more and more people stand up and demand sovereignty in their area.

8. 

   DM Zuniga Reply 26. Mar, 2009 at 11:19 am

   Michael,

   Distinguo. We don’t “demand” what we already have.

   We’re sovereign States; the legislatures are mostly just reiterating our sovereignty (by repeating Jefferson’s KY Resolution), not demanding sovereignty.

   Anyone readign this who lives in a State whose legislature is reasserting your sovereignty in a Resolution now drafted and in process or committee, please contact the committee chairman overseeing the House or Senate process — do NOT let these committee chairs allow these Resolutions to die in committee!

   You need to understand that a committee chair in a State Legislature is for all practical purposes, the KING of your State in all matters of reform legislation! That chairperson can let the best bills and resolutions DIE in committee.

   To stop this abuse of liberal power:

   1) Go to your State Legislature’s website and find your Sovereignty Resolution (if there is one in process);

   2) Track the Resolution; find out if it’s already in committee and if so, see who the chairman is of that committee;

   3) Please add our suggested amendment language (see below for TX example) as an “enforcement hook” in the Resolution, so that the constituents of any US congressional district, or of your State, can pursue civil and criminal enforcement under STATE STATUTES against any member of Congress who refuses to cease and desist violating the Constitution, as these Resolutions demand that Congress do.

   4) Get your local tea party activists to flood that chairman’s office with letters and emails, DEMANDING that the Resolution be heard in committee, be discussed (and reconciled with any similar resolution in the committee), and be amended with that “enforcement hook” language.

   RESOLVED, That although this act does not provide specific remedies for unlawful activities described herein by a Texas resident who is a member of the United States Congress, the State of Texas reserves the right to pursue action, civil or criminal, on behalf of the constituents of said member of Congress, available under the laws of this state; and be it further

   This is really not much to ask, folks. If you’re willing to take these small duties of self-government, you might amaze yourself, and your grandchildren one day.

   “The only thing required for the triumph of evil, is that good men do nothing.”

   http://www.america-again.blogspot.com

   • 

     Michael Boldin Reply 26. Mar, 2009 at 11:35 am

     First of all ZM, while all your input here is really appreciated, please try to tone it down just a notch. Our goal is to facilitate some civil conversation, not just have people blasting out long essays which act as little more than a promotional tool for other websites. If this is your intention, you might want to think about writing up a formal article and emailing it to me here for publication consideration.

     Moving forward…

     Sovereignty is rightfully ours. And the federal government is clearly authorized to do only those things that are authorized to it by the Constitution – but that’s not what happens in practice today. Moving forward to those principles is what needs to happen to secure liberty for our future.

     As far as legislative actions, I would say that a one-size-fits-all solution for just about any problem is not the right method. While your proposals clearly have merit, to claim that’s the proper way forward or the only way forward is doing the same thing that we’re fighting against now.

     In some states, there may be enough support to demand an enforcement hook. In other states, this kind of “immediate results” impatience is just the kind of thing that will drive those marginal supporters to the other side.

     No doubt that you’re right about the committees, though – we’ve seen a few resolutions die there already. It’s going to take a lot of persistence to get these things through.

9. 

   DM Zuniga Reply 28. Mar, 2009 at 4:31 am

   Michael,

   I am suggesting immediate action, but certainly not expecting “immediate results”. We have never — not in 220 years — enforced the US Constitution against the federal creature we created and circumscribed in that Constitution.

   If we take immediate, tactically wise action, we may obtain results over time. Likely decades, perhaps a generation.

   David

   • 

     Michael Boldin Reply 28. Mar, 2009 at 12:04 pm

     Great points, DM, thanks for clarifying! I’d really prefer now myself, but think it’s unrealistic. So, maybe we need to consider both angles – what can be done to get some kind of short term results while keeping our “eye on the prize” and understanding that over a century of federal usurpations are going to take time to turn around.

10. 

    DM Zuniga Reply 28. Mar, 2009 at 12:32 pm

    Michael,

    Exactly. That’s what I’ve done. I’m a law-abiding Nontaxpayer so I already got “results” for my own engineering practice and for my own family. The pressure’s off, and I can watch the crooks in D.C. rape you guys for 1/3 of all you make…and I don’t have to worry. Those are my short-term results and I love it.

    But longer-term, I know that playing defense isn’t enough; I also know that the State legislatures are just coming to grips with the imminent (5-10 years) loss of our Rule of Law. It really, seriously will be beyond recovery in just a few more years; we must start taking action now, to see results in 10-15 years or more.

    That’s what the AmericaAgain! project is: a neighborhood-level plan of ACTION, just like a Neighborhood Watch program, coupled with a Homeowners’ Association, but aimed at civil and criminal indictments for each member of Congress.

    I know it sounds lofty, but if you read the website, I hope you’ll agree that it’s exactly what Jefferson and Madison proposed in 1798, but never followed through.

    Without these State Resolutions, we’re dead in the water, though. Local vigilante groups can’t enforce the US Constitution (lawfully); only State Legislatures can. So the CHSAs (local groups) are intended to apply the necessary pressure on legislatures in the States, so we can go after criminals in Congress, at home, one by one.

    Hey, it’s better than any other plan I’ve seen proposed, and it follows Jefferson and Madison, to a tee.

    http://www.america-again.blogspot.com

11. 

    Kitten James Reply 28. Mar, 2009 at 4:43 pm

    Ashamed of Arkansas, I can’t believe they failed this bill!!

12. 

    Monorprise Reply 15. Jun, 2009 at 12:51 am

    The difference between the local tyranny in the state or local government and that of the distant tyranny in Washington DC is simply a matter of your ability to escape and deal with their tyranny.

    In short you will find the local tyranny far more manageable for you than that of the distant tyrant which deny you any place to run to escape them.

    Casting my lot with the state even one I don’t like in federation with other states among which I can freely move and trade is a vastly more secure able stance in the cause of liberty.

    The argument for substituting one tyranny a 1000 miles away for 1000 tyrants 1 mile a way is only valid when we are speaking of leaving a union, which is not the case. But even if it were the deal was good enough for our founding fathers when they did it.

    • 

      Michael Boldin Reply 16. Jun, 2009 at 10:28 am

      Monorprise – some great perspective on local vs distant tyranny. Thanks for taking the time to post this…

Leave a Reply